It makes the most sense from both a logistical and a political perspective. Logistically since SLS can only launch 1-2 times a year more capability is needed to launch cargo. FH can place a Destiny sized module in DRO as well as a Cygnus or a Dragon.
Politically both OldSpace and NewSpace have their supporters in the political arena.
Trying to do it all the NewSpace way or the OldSpace way will lead to damaging political fights.
A compromise proposal like this preserves the most support for space exploration.
What may end up happening is SLS will handle really large cargo (say BA-330 or a lunar lander) and crew (with co-manifested payloads) while FH and other commercial rockets handle cargo resupply and the smaller modules, with BLEO commercial crew on the horizon.
In the space lecture I give to my students each semester I always include a slide with Nathan's (okan170) excellent render of FH on 39A and SLS on 39B with the caption of "Tag Team?" Looks like I can take the question mark out soon.
An exploration program using both SLS and commercial rockets is something I have hoped would happen for a while. I am really glad to hear Gerst endorsing it (his comments about a cis-lunar outpost were also very promising). It makes the most sense from both a logistical and a political perspective. Logistically since SLS can only launch 1-2 times a year more capability is needed to launch cargo. FH can place a Destiny sized module in DRO as well as a Cygnus or a Dragon. Politically both OldSpace and NewSpace have their supporters in the political arena. Trying to do it all the NewSpace way or the OldSpace way will lead to damaging political fights. A compromise proposal like this preserves the most support for space exploration. What may end up happening is SLS will handle really large cargo (say BA-330 or a lunar lander) and crew (with co-manifested payloads) while FH and other commercial rockets handle cargo resupply and the smaller modules, with BLEO commercial crew on the horizon. With a couple of differences this a repeat of what is going on with LEO right now. NASA builds the outpost, initially crews it with a NASA owned spacecraft, contracts for commercial cargo, and finally contracts for commercial crew. What's not to like?
Quote from: Endeavour_01 on 03/11/2017 11:58 pmAn exploration program using both SLS and commercial rockets is something I have hoped would happen for a while. I am really glad to hear Gerst endorsing it (his comments about a cis-lunar outpost were also very promising). It makes the most sense from both a logistical and a political perspective. Logistically since SLS can only launch 1-2 times a year more capability is needed to launch cargo. FH can place a Destiny sized module in DRO as well as a Cygnus or a Dragon. ...What's not to like?What's not to like is quite possibly paying $3 billion a year for a single SLS launch, or over $4 billion if Orion is included. It's not obvious that there would be much left over for anything else....
An exploration program using both SLS and commercial rockets is something I have hoped would happen for a while. I am really glad to hear Gerst endorsing it (his comments about a cis-lunar outpost were also very promising). It makes the most sense from both a logistical and a political perspective. Logistically since SLS can only launch 1-2 times a year more capability is needed to launch cargo. FH can place a Destiny sized module in DRO as well as a Cygnus or a Dragon. ...What's not to like?
...due to its high cost, the SLS rocket will only be able to fly once a year.
SLS is used for that unique case where we have to launch one very large mass that can't be broken up into separate pieces
We appear to be stuck with SLS for the next few years, but as soon as that hypothetical 'one very large mass' 1. exists, and 2. can be flown by someone else,SLS will be scrapped.
Quote from: Endeavour_01 on 03/11/2017 11:58 pmIn the space lecture I give to my students each semester I always include a slide with Nathan's (okan170) excellent render of FH on 39A and SLS on 39B with the caption of "Tag Team?" Looks like I can take the question mark out soon. Yep, because SLS is history.
Quote from: AncientU on 03/12/2017 03:33 pmWe appear to be stuck with SLS for the next few years, but as soon as that hypothetical 'one very large mass' 1. exists, and 2. can be flown by someone else,SLS will be scrapped.Just as a reminder, the SLS has an 8m diameter body and cargo fairing, and the Blue Origin New Glenn rocket they hope to start launching in 2020 has a 7m diameter body and cargo fairing. The New Glenn will be capable of lifting 45mT to LEO, versus the initial SLS capacity of 70mT to LEO.So by the early 2020's the private launch sector should be able to lift any bulky NASA items to space that otherwise would have needed the SLS....
OldSpace, which includes most of the largest government contractors, wields far more political clout that NewSpace. It's not even close.
What NewSpace has going for it are those politicians that are capitalists and/or focus on price as a determinant for whether the government is needed or not to provide a service.
The New Glenn, which is now committed to be operational about the same time as the SLS (i.e. 2021) has a body diameter of 7m, compared to a body diameter of 8m for the SLS. And it will be able to lift 45mT to LEO.
Yep, because SLS is history.
What's not to like is quite possibly paying $3 billion a year for a single SLS launch, or over $4 billion if Orion is included. It's not obvious that there would be much left over for anything else.
After reading the last page of this thread I am reminded of MATTBLAK's sidebar quote, "'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)."Can we all not agree that this is at least a positive development and something to be excited about?
I never said they had equal political clout, only that each side had some and that it would foolish to engage in a "space civil war" that would deplete support for the space program as a whole.
Lets not pretend that politicians who support NewSpace are as pure as the wind-driven snow. Most OldSpace and NewSpace supporters in Congress only care about money going to their districts. If Mike Rogers were representing a district near Hawthorne instead of one near Huntsville his views would be a complete 180.
From what I understand NG has less performance BLEO than FH. We need to focus on BLEO numbers rather than LEO when comparing SLS to commercial rockets. Right now there are no serious plans to use SLS as a LEO launcher, NASA can let the private sector take care of that.
In a lot of posts on this forum there is an oft-repeated assumption that if SLS/Orion are canceled the money will flow to commercial space or other projects.
Quote from: Endeavour_01 on 03/12/2017 07:19 pmAfter reading the last page of this thread I am reminded of MATTBLAK's sidebar quote, "'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)."Can we all not agree that this is at least a positive development and something to be excited about?I think there is a lot of joy about this....
Quote from: Jim on 03/12/2017 12:00 pmYep, because SLS is history.We'll see.
NASA HSF, freed of senate micromanagement, given a JPL like autonomy, with funds left over for missions could give us the same excitement as those heady early days.
The JPL analogy is not true. Congress still dicks with them.
Quote from: Endeavour_01 on 03/12/2017 07:19 pmQuote from: Jim on 03/12/2017 12:00 pmYep, because SLS is history.We'll see. Many of the non SLS people at KSC think it is. Many wonder why we are wasting our time on it. Also, some JPL'ers feel the same way.
Quote from: Proponent on 03/12/2017 12:19 pmWhat's not to like is quite possibly paying $3 billion a year for a single SLS launch, or over $4 billion if Orion is included. It's not obvious that there would be much left over for anything else.Lets be clear here that this is less per year than we paid to launch the shuttle. Sure, there are less launches, but the slack can be picked up by the commercial rockets and the goal (a cis-lunar outpost) is far larger than LEO flights.
In a lot of posts on this forum there is an oft-repeated assumption that if SLS/Orion are canceled the money will flow to commercial space or other projects. At the very least that is not guaranteed and more than likely the money will leave the space program all together. Personally I would rather see that money remain a part of NASA's budget.
Three existing military rockets served NASA's manned space program just fine in the beginning. Though the largest of commercial launchers of the time may have been able to carry out a lunar program via an EOR architecture, rendezvous was not proven, and the massive Apollo-Nova program was proposed. It was feared Kennedy's goal would not be reached in time. Most here know the story of moving to LOR and Saturn instead. No existing rockets could accomplish a manned lunar goal and Saturn was thus justified in the minds of those who prevailed.As for STS, I don't even want to go into all the civilian and military politics.When Ares then SLS were proposed, nothing else was on the horizon (Falcon X was an idea for a portion of the time) that could do the job NASA wanted was told to do.We don't need to recount the tortured history of SLS. What is germane is that new classes of HLV and SHLV are either at hand or about to go into development. These are quite capable of EOR assembly for a lunar architecture in the near future. Those capable of Mars architectures are not as certain, but look to be quite viable. Falcon wasn't originally intended for reuse, but its design fortuitously allowed it and proved the concept. The reusability factor alone is enough to begin thinking of closing out most existing launch systems in favor of new LVs designed for reuse from the get/go. Throwing good money after bad for an obsolete technology is silly. Even the cadre of senators who have championed SLS have to acknowledge that at some point.Not only will new commercial launchers be partially or fully reusable, they free NASA from the burden of building launchers that fly for around 10 minutes and allow them instead to focus on what to do once astronauts are IN space. Having a super launcher but no money for a mission, as has been said here for a long time, is absurd. Dumping SLS-Orion is not going to cost any time in the long run. It was only going to fly 4 times in the next 10 years and would be in need of new engines, boosters, SM, tower mods, habs, landers, rovers, etc., et al. Letting go and embracing new technology that is far more efficient and affordable is the only prudent option. Of course politicians are not always (or even often) prudent, but from the POV of economics and technology, it really is the only viable path forward.From one viewpoint, it means moving forward to new technology, but from another it is simply coming full circle and using launchers that NASA simply buys (or buys services) rather than builds. NASA HSF, freed of senate micromanagement, given a JPL like autonomy, with funds left over for missions could give us the same excitement as those heady early days.
For instance, if SLS is cancelled what happens to MSFC? I can tell you that it will continue to exist so it will do the obvious alternative, providing its full oversight and influence on whoever NASA contracts with. The paper trails, x-ray'd welds, and supplier certification will be required for all launches with said launcher for the sake of oversight, without regard to what that will do to the contractor's commercial business.
Quote from: rayleighscatter on 03/13/2017 08:19 pmFor instance, if SLS is cancelled what happens to MSFC? I can tell you that it will continue to exist so it will do the obvious alternative, providing its full oversight and influence on whoever NASA contracts with. The paper trails, x-ray'd welds, and supplier certification will be required for all launches with said launcher for the sake of oversight, without regard to what that will do to the contractor's commercial business.If SLS is cancelled MSFC should be tasked with engineering in-space exploration hardware such as a deep space hab, moon lander, or Mars lander.
Unless there is a specific and long-term need, the U.S. Government should not have a need to own space transportation systems, and should instead focus on the activities at the end points of transportation systems.